Greenleaf v. Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works

Belcher, C. C. This is an action to recover damages for breach of warranty of a harvesting machine, and the appeal is taken by defendant from the judgment and an order denying a new trial.

In 1884 the defendant was engaged at Stockton in manufacturing and selling a harvesting machine, known as the Shippee combined harvester. The plaintiff, a farmer in Colusa County, purchased and used during that year one of these machines. In 1885 the defendant continued to manufacture the same machine, but with certain improvements. In May, 1885, the parties entered into a written agreement for an exchange of machines. The agreement stated that the party of the first part “agrees to deliver to said party of the second part, at their works, on or before June 3d, one twelve-foot Shippee combined harvester No. 23, as improved for 1885, and warrants the same to do good work when properly handled, and to, furnish a man .to help set up and start the [608]machine, in consideration of which said party of the second party agrees to deliver to said party of the first part, on or before June 15,1885, one No. 1, twelve-foot Shippee combined harvester, purchased last year, and to pay to said party $423 in gold coin, on October 1, 1885; $423, with interest from maturity at the rate of one per cent per month until paid. It is further agreed that if the harvester should not do good work, that the party of the second part shall so inform the party of the first part, and if said party fail to make the harvester do good work within a reasonable length of time, it is hereby mutually agreed that the party of the second part is not to pay any money in consideration for the exchange.”

The new harvester arrived at plaintiff’s farm, and was set up and started in the field by an employee of defendant on the 5th of June, but it choked up and would not do good work. Subsequently, at different times, defendant sent three other employees, one of them being the foreman of its works, to adjust and rearrange certain defective parts of the machine, so as to make it do good work if possible. The plaintiff continued to use, or try to use, the harvester until the 18th of July, when he sent it back to the defendant at Stockton. As explanatory of his reasons for sending it back, plaintiff wrote to defendant, under date of July 22d, as follows:—

“Inclosed find shipping receipt for one of your machines, No. '23,’ which I shipped to-day to you. The gearing is not right, nor never was; it heats, binds, and cuts all the time, and as Mr. Southworth said he could not fit it unless it was at the shop, I ship early so you can have your own time to fix it; the header draper would clog occasionally, and also the feeder; the passage for the straw to the cylinder is too narrow, and don’t allow the feed to pass; the drop is too flat, it allows it to move off in bunches and clog. The distance from the grain drag to the sieve is too short, and don’t allow the grain to separate from the chaff; the faji don’t give wind